1

MEMORANDUM To: Gil Wood , EPA From: Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc. Date: November 5 , 2012 Subject: **Notes from October 30, 2012 Meeting with EPA and HPBA at RTP, NC** 

____________________________________________________________________________________ **Participants:** John Crouch, HPBA (main presenter) David Menotti , Crowell & Moring, LLP (Attorney for HPBA , called in) Bob Ferguson , Ferguson Andors & Co ( Product development c onsultant to HPBA , called in) Gil Wood, EPA Mike Toney , EPA Greg Green, EPA John Kinsey, EPA David Cole, EPA Larry Sorrels, EPA Amanda Aldrich, EPA Chebryll Edwards, EPA Beth Friedman, EC/R Jill Mozier, EC/R **Synopsis of HPBA position**  **:** John Crouch of Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA) presented HPBA’s power- point “road show” created to educate the states regarding issues impactin g the wood heater NSPS (~75% of meeting) and hydronic heater rule concerns ( ~25% of meeting) , and explained that th e presentation would be put on a CD to give to the states at the Minneapolis meeting. David Menotti and Bob Ferguson supplemented John Crouch’s presentation via phone. EPA asked questions to clarify HPBA’s conclusions, as well as clarified EPA’s and the st ate’s concerns , as needed. EC/R observed and took notes. HPBA’s main points regarding the wood heater NSPS included that HPBA shares certain common goals with the states and EPA ( of improving air quality , replacing uncertified polluting stoves, and continuing to improve the real - world performance of certified stoves), but contends that the research shows that:  EPA’s current test methods are not precise enough to differentiate between 4.5 g/hr and 3.0 g/hr even within the same lab (HPBA claims the variabil ity is ±3 g/hr not ±1 g/hr);  There is no correlation between certification values and real - world emission rates, and that the ranking of the best performing stoves in the real - world situation are not accuratel y predicted b y the lab certification tests ;2

 Th e inherent variability in burning wood (especially cordwood versus cribwood) contributes greatl y to the disconnect between real - world and lab results, and even contributes significantl y to the lack of same lab precision ;  A standard < 4.5 g/hr is not cost effective ;  A review of the AP - 42 data set, based on comparing in situ measurements with known certification test data for the models measured in the field, show s that while overall certified stoves are better performers, there is no correlation between the certified value and the real world emission rates and that the rank ordering changes between the two measures.  Tightening the standard (i.e., lowering the NSPS passing grade) or test parameters (e.g., density) would merel y increase the cost ( decrease available models and make available models more expensive ) and not improve certification test precision (exclud e some good - performing stoves from market unnecessarily) , which would slow change - outs and further disconnect EPA certification with real - world performance ;  EPA Method 28 (M28) requirement for Category 1 run s at a burn rate <1.0 dry kg/hr (based on in - situ test data in development of NSPS) doesn’t correspond to the original intent to match real world use patterns . This is because the in - situ field tests measured the heater temperature at higher (cooler) location on the stack as an indication of the end of the test versus the lab tes ts us ing a zero delta weight scale reading as the end of the test . Thus for the same event, the in - situ test values would show shorter burn times than corresponding lab tests . The draft ASTM method increases the minimum burn rate requirement to 1.15 kg/hr ; and  Overall efficiency , unlike combustion efficiency , is not a surrogate for CO emissions , does not correlate to particulate emissions , and is not necessarily precisel y measured -- and furthermore including overall efficiency in standard would eliminate ~1/3 of models that currently meet 4.5 g/hr standard . HPBA therefore concludes that tightening the NSPS standard is counter - productive to the goals of improving the real - world performance of stoves and improving air quality , and proposes that:  To improve real - world performance, E PA should focus not on certification numbers but rather on low burn rates and getting away from crib testing altogether (i.e., moving to cordwood) ;  M28’s low burn rate protocol should be changed to better reflect real - world burning and to better allow for a clean burn by

increasing the allowable start - up time during the pre - burn time to provide effective fire - starting draft and hotter start than lab currently requires, and by

a modest increase (15%) in the minimum combustion air setting; and  Overall efficiency

(which includes heat transfer efficiency , not onl y combustion efficiency) should not be added to the standard, but rather merely disclosed to the consumer on the hang tag , which will allow marketplace pressure to drive efficiency improvement and thereb y achieve efficiency goals in a few years without the need for enforcement. HPBA’s main points regarding changes to the proposed Hydronic Heater (HH) standard include that:  Education is needed (for states) regarding what is and is not a well - operated HH with BSER ;  EPA’s HH voluntary

program has been a success because tremendous progress has been made in HH emission reductions in a relativel y short period (26 cordwood models and 13 manufacturers under voluntary

program since 2004); and3

 A 0.32 lbs /MMBtu h eat output standard represents 90% control, this is the number that EPA had at least implied to manufacturers was the draft NSPS target in 2010 , and this is also the limit which is attainable (the lower co - proposed standard of 0.15 lbs /MMBtu will put all U.S. manufacturers but Central Boiler out - of - business if the compliance deadline is immediate ) ;  Specific (draft) key

elements be included in ASTM’s Partial Thermal Storage (PTS) Method in order to level playing field between European - and American - made HHs ;  Precision of EPA M28 WHH has not been determined (but it’s unlikely that it ’s more precise than wood stove method due again to inherent variability of wood as fuel);  Format of standard already indirectly

regulates efficiency

since B tu is part of units; and  EPA should not proceed with the 0.15 lbs /MMBtu co - proposal immediatel y but rather stay with the 0.32 lbs /MMBtu limit as the standard and have a reasonable time for improvements . **Discussion Highlights (EPA and HPBA):**  EPA noted that SIP planners ty picall y double the certification numbers and would therefore contend that the real - world emission limits are already being considered in SIPs .  EPA noted that there have probabl y been technological improvements to wood stoves since 1995 (compared to dataset Dr. James H ouck looked at and on which HBPA is basing their assertions). HPBA respond ed that there has been very little money

for R&D so basic woodstove tec hnology is unchanged, and further that the points made regarding the precision of the lab testing are still valid since it’s the same test.  EPA noted that according to a meeting with Hearth & Home Technology at their in - house test lab in Colville , they

tes t on crib s and cordwood both , in order to ensure real world performance in addition to lab performance. Thus, the ir certification numbers are not that far away from real world values. HPBA responded that there is almost no data on cordwood in labs using M2 8.  HPBA asserted several times that a stricter standard would slow the rate of change - outs of the 6 million uncertified stoves that are still in the field and have 2 to 3 times higher emissions than certified stoves. They

note that 86% of PM comes from the se 6 million uncertified stoves so change - outs should be a primary goal. EPA responded that OID has been supporting changeouts for over a decade but our partners ty picall y onl y achieve change - outs on the order of 100 to 150 stoves per project , so how long would it take at that rate to change - out 6 million uncertified stoves?  EPA cautioned HPBA that allowing companies to manufacture 0.32 lbs/MMBtu hydronic heaters for very

long is not the goal of most states given their concern about insults to air quality . F urther , EPA cautioned that EPA never stated nor implied the NSPS standard wouldn’t go down to 0.15 lbs /MMBtu or even lower . Nonetheless, EPA understands that one of HPBA’s concerns regards the timeline needed to meet such a standard. HPBA contends that such a low limit will put almost all manufacturers of HH out of business, that even European models are at ~0.2 lbs /MMBtu , depending on how they are tested , and that there is almost no data to support a 0.15 lbs /MMBtu limit. EPA asked what a re a son a ble time would be. HPBA noted that “ they did not institute a nuclear attack against EPA’s earlier discussion of perhaps 5 ye ars. ”  E PA is interested in HPBA’s position regarding inclusion of a short - term PM emissions testing requirement for hydronic heaters, not as an emission limit , but on order to provide data for future rule making. HPBA noted that data does not currently exist for that form of a standard, but has no problem with data generation effort to inform a later emission standard.4

 EPA noted that it would likely not have time to wait for ASTM to finish their development of refined test methods but rather will likely have to proceed without an official ASTM refined method , and further noted that some states’ air programs cannot join ASTM. HPBA noted that the ASTM process has some rigor and suggested that the participation question perhaps needed to be asked differentl y to states’ attorney s generals regarding ASTM membership because some of these same states have , for example , transportation agencies that are ASTM members. HPBA noted that they

will contact Mary

McKiel, the EPA NTTA Coordinator, for assistance in this matter .  HPBA is still working on their independent cost analy sis and trying to make it consistent with OMB guidelines. EPA noted that OMB commonly looks at certain parameters, e.g., 5 th year impacts, so that they

have comparable analy sis between rules. The group also discussed whether a longer model life could be considered in the analysis.  In response to EPA question regarding whether certain add- on technologies would be less expensive to manufacture compared to a complete re - design, HPBA responded that EPA should be wary of such add - ons because consumers will not necessaril y keep sophisticated technology in proper working order. HPBA will respond more formall y to this EPA question in docket.  HPBA explained that in order to move away from crib wood testing, there are advantages to a middle - ground cordwood “off - ramp” in the NSPS which gives industry the option (not requirement) of testing using cordwood instead of crib. This bridge concept could incentivize experts in the field and create a generation of appliance s based on cordwood rather than crib , but frankl y industry

is currently cautious to adopt and leave familiar crib - based testing s ys tem. In the meantime, HPBA assured EPA that the industry was burning cordwood and collecting data. EPA expressed support for cordwood option and for industry collecting data. In response to industry ’s concern that some states would jump to requirement of cordwood testing, EPA noted that EPA cannot tell the states to not do so and suggested that HPBA might consider approach ing st ates like Washington and Oregon directly for discussions of whether they could assure that cordwood would not yet be required as the only method, but rather that there be a transition period before agreed - upon Year X when cordwood testing would be the requirement . EPA noted that OR and WA may be receptive.  Issues in testing with cordwood include loading density , operating at the low burn rate and start up can be more difficult.  EPA agrees that old existing woodstoves are a major problem and encourages thinking creativel y about the standard, trade - offs, etc . (e.g., like the averaging concept using for fleet vehicles).  HPBA suggested remov ing referencing numbers from hang tags and us ing a focus group at the Expo in Orlando (spring 2013) to help simplify and clarify

tags, which are currentl y too complicated in their opinion. EPA thought that it would be possible to participate in the focus group effort .  EPA wondered about certified installers of woodstoves to ensure proper installation, ch imney height, and to educate consumer about proper burn techniques, etc. HPBA could envision such a sy stem with, for example, signed legal paperwork by installer being sent to EPA.